Blacksacademy Symbol blacksacademy.net
contact
SIGN IN  |   VIDEO LIBRARY  |   PRICES  |   REVIEWS  |   CONTACT

Concepts of Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism

The concept of “race”

Miles defines racism “as any set of claims or arguments which signify some aspect of the physical features of an individual or group as a sign of permanent distinctiveness and which attribute additional, negative characteristics and/or consequences to the individual's or group's presence.” For this to mark a racist attitude the biological difference must be genetically inheritable.
Whilst not all sociologists would accept this definition of racism, it has the use of indicating that any theoretical justification of racism is underpinned by a pseudo-scientific theory that there exist different races, and furthermore, that these races have distinct abilities that justify the use of terms such as “superior race” and “inferior race”. This in turn is used to justify the domination of “inferior races” by “superior races”.
The concept of race is primarily a C19th theory that arose in the context of continuing colonialisation and can be demonstrated to be a scientifically false theory. We first proceed to do this.

No scientific basis to racism

It is as well to ask whether there is any scientific basis to the concept of race. This has been examined by the geneticist Steve Jones. He maintains that of the 50,000 genes that determine inheritable characteristics of human beings, less than ten genes contribute to the determination of skin colour. These different characteristics have evolved as a result of climatic selection pressures — people with darker skins are favoured to survive in tropical areas. Thus, there is no genetic justification for distinguishing between races. The differences that go by the name of racial differences occur in a small sample of genes that do not correlated with other differences in genes. He writes, “The patterns of variation in each system are independent of each other. Our colour does not say much about what lies under the skin.” From a genetic point of view the differences between different nationalities is equally significant: “The overall genetic difference between “races' — Africans and Europeans, say — is no greater than that between different countries within Europe or within Africa. Individuals — not nations and not races — are the main repository of human variation.” In fact, the similarity between different humans is more significant than their differences — human beings are much more homogeneous than other species.
Thus, there is no basis in science for the doctrine of racial superiority. Indeed, as regards human destiny and human behaviour, it seems that genetic determination takes second place to social determination. It is not possible to define a measure by which racial superiority can be defined. It is also not true that Western cultures have always been dominant. It is possible to argue that in terms of culture and technology the African civilizations of Zimbabwe and the Ashanti were ahead of the European civilizations during the Dark Ages. Thus, race is a social construct rather than a biological fact. According to Richardson and Lambert, race is made up of “what people make of physical differences” and assuming that physical differences matter has not always been a feature of people's thinking.

Migration

Oliver Cox (in his 1948 work Class, Caste and Race) claims that in ancient civilizations there was no racism, and that racism first manifested itself within Western society towards the end of the C15th. A significant historical turning point was the 1493 papal bull of Alexander VI, issued under pressure from the Spanish, that endorsed the policy that “all the heathen peoples and their resources — that is to say, especially the coloured peoples of the world — [shall be placed] at the disposal of Spain and Portugal”.
The period from the C16th to the C19th is known as the period of colonialisation. During this period European countries established empires in North and South America, Africa and Australasia. There were some large-scale migrations of populations as a result. The slave trade resulted in the transportation of approximately 15 million Africans to North and South America and the Caribbean. The British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in their colonies in 1834 and slavery altogether in 1837; the Dutch abolished slavery in 1863, and the USA abolished slavery in 1865.
However, there continued to be some significant population migrations. Once slavery was abolished there arose the practice of indentured servants. These were people from the Indian sub-continent who contracted to work for British masters for a period of years. Approximate 30 million Indians were transported as a result to areas in East Africa, Trinidad, Guyana and Malaya. The Dutch also used indentured servants in the Dutch East Indies.
The USA is based on migrant populations. Between 1800 and 1860 about two thirds of the migrants cam from Britain; another fifth were German. From 1850 onwards there were more migrants to the USA from Italy, Ireland, Spain and Eastern Europe. The USA placed restrictions on immigration from China and Asia from 1880 onwards and on Europeans from 1920 onwards.
The British started to colonise Australia in 1788, and in the C19th and C20th centuries more people migrated to Australia than from other European countries. Castles and Millner explain that “The period from about 1850 to 1914 was an era of mass migration. It was also a time of industrialization and economic growth in Western Europe and the USA. Industrialisation was a cause of both emigration and immigration.”
During the period 1945 — 1970 migration has followed three main patterns. (1) There is the encouragement of guestworkers — migrant labour from Turkey and other countries into Germany — given restricted rights within Germany and invited to stay because of a shortage of manual labour. (2) Migration from former colonies to the countries of former colonial power — particularly significant in the case of France that in the post-war period brought in large-scale immigration from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and West Africa. (3) Migration to North America and Australia.
However, since the 1970s the scale and pattern of migration has changed. This is the result of the downturn in Western economic activity following the 1974 oil crisis, and the development of a global market. The USA, Canada and Australia continued to receive migrants but on a reduced scale. However, migration because of political or economic crisis has increased — that is political and economic refugees.

Some aspects of the history of racism

Racism as a theory, based on the pseudo concept of race, arose in the C19th. Justifications were first sought from the Bible. Race as lineage is the theory that all human beings are descended from one source, but in the process of the descent different races became differentiated. This view is based to an extent on the authority of the Bible, and claims that we all have common ancestors in Adam and Eve, but that the different racial groups separated following such events as the Flood and the destruction of the Tower of Babel. The idea also emerged that some racial groups had developed along superior lines to others.
However, being wedded to Christianity this concept does not provide sufficient justification for the exploitation of one population by another that is evident in colonialisation. Thus, the theory of race as type arose. This is the polygenetic theory that all human beings do not share a single common origin. This theory was supported by the work of Philadelphian doctor Samuel James Morton, who in 1839 published work based on measurements of skull sizes in which he drew the distinction five different races: (1) the Caucasian (Europe, India, North Africa and the Middle East); (2) the Mongolian (Chinese and Eskimos); (3) the Malay (Malaysia and the Polynesian Islands); (4) the American (native Americans) and (5) the Ethiopian (sub-Saharan Africa). He maintained that the Caucasians had larger cranial capacity, and hence larger brains and greater intelligence.
In 1854 J.C. Nott and G.R. Gliddon published Types of Mankind also in Philadelphia which built on Morton's theory. They claimed that the Caucasians “have in all ages been the rulers” and demonstrate their racial superiority by having evolved democracy.
During the 1850s French writer Arthur de Gobineau claimed that there was a distinctive Aryan race that was superior to all other races. He claimed that this race was the basis of all the major civilizations of the world including those of Egypt, Rome, China, Greece, Assyria, Mexico and Peru.
The theory of race as subspecies combines the theories of both race as lineage and race as type, and derives from Darwin's theory of evolution, according to which members of the same species can develop into different sub-species when cut off from each other and subjected to different environmental selection pressures.
The theory of race as subspecies was also promoted by the theories of social evolution advanced by Herbert Spencer during the C19th. Spencer was in favour of the procreation of elements drawn from members of near species, but against the mixing of not closely related races. Thus, he wrote that “Sundry instances point to the conclusion that a society formed from nearly-allied peoples of which the conquering eventually mingles with the conquered is relatively well fitted for progress.” On the other hand he maintained that “If instead of different species, remote varieties are united, the intermediate organism is not infertile; but many facts suggest the conclusion that infertility results in subsequent generations: the incongruous workings of the united structures, though longer in showing itself, comes out ultimately.”
Spencer also developed a theory of an evolutionary scale. Societies could be classified as simple, compound, doubly compound and trebly compound. The “superior races” are those associated with the most “evolved” societies - that is, the trebly compound societies. Of these he lists Ancient Mexico, the Assyrian Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia as examples.
It is as well to note that genetic research has not been able to identify either an “Aryan race” or a Caucasian one. If these concepts have any meaning, they are not based on genetically inherited characteristics.

Racism

Mark Halstead draws a distinction between two forms of racism.
Pre-reflective gut racism
He claims this used to be called racialism and denotes an emotional rather than rational response. It is caused by a tendency in human nature towards fear, anxiety and insecurity, and also by the general human tendency to seek superiority over others. It is usually paired with ignorance of the real characteristics of racial minorities, and is attended by racial myths and accepted stereotypes. This emotional response expresses itself in hostile behaviour towards the targeted racial group or groups, and by attempts to dominate and scapegoat them. A racial myth is a statement without factual foundation and which is untrue. A racial stereotype is a tendency to judge members of a racial group on the basis of generalizations about that group.
Post-reflective gut racism
This is built on pre-reflective gut racism and is marked by a concern on the individual's part to rationalize, that is, justify, the continuing racial prejudice. This is done by the creation of an ideology of racial superiority and domination and makes use of bogus religious and scientific ideas.
According to the definition adopted by the United Nations in the 1960s, “Racism falsely claims that there is a scientific basis for arranging groups hierarchically in terms of psychological and cultural characteristics that are immutable and innate.” This definition equates racism to what Halstead describes as post-reflective gut racism. However, other sociologists do not regard a system of beliefs to be essential to racism. From this point of view, a person is a racist who discriminates against members of another group whether they hold a theory of this or not.
We have shown above that post-reflective gut racism has no basis in science. Clearly, as a sociological phenomenon, different “racial” groups are identified in the minds of people, and this is often on the basis of skin colour, which is a genetically inheritable trait. However, people with the same skin colour do not necessarily regard themselves as belonging to the same group, whether that is called a “race” or otherwise.
Thus, it is best to regard the groups to which people identify themselves as “belonging” as a social phenomenon. Such groups originate in social forces. When a group is created by historical and social forces, it is called an ethnic group. Thus, people may be identified as belonging to different ethnic groups, but not to different races, since the existence of race is a bogus concept, whereas the existence of ethnic groups cannot be denied.

Ethnicity

Sociologists define ethnicity in terms of culture — for example, Thomas Eriksen defines an ethnic group in terms of cultural differences rather than physical differences. This definition is sometimes used to subsume that of race. A race may be defined as an ethnic group that sees itself and/or is perceived by others to have biologically distinct characteristics, whether they do in fact have these characteristics or not.
Since ethnic groups are created by social perception, there may be made different types of ethnic group. For example, Yinger gives the following types of ethnic group: (a) an immigrant population all coming from one country — such as Vietnamese living in the USA; (b) an aboriginal population sharing a common descent and culture — such as the Iroquois in Canada; (c) a group that may in fact have a very diverse cultural background and origin but members of which are identified as “similar' by others on the basis of language, certain physical characteristics or religion — such as Hispanics in the USA.
Sometimes an individual is perceived as belonging to more than one ethnic group. For example, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Indians is one form of ethnic classification, but one based on religion, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, might produce a different classification.

Nationalism

A nation is a group of people formed into a political community and enjoying or claiming the right of self-government.
The relationship between nationalism and racism is much debated. Benedict Anderson claims that the two are not necessarily linked, on the grounds that the concept of nationalism does not necessarily exclude an individual from membership, since one can acquire a nationality, whereas race cannot be acquired. However, this is opposed by Robert Miles who argues that the “ideologies of racism and nationalism have a common historical origin.” He acknowledges that nationalism has the specific political objective of establishing a sovereign nation state, and in this respect is different from racism. Thomas Eriksen similarly links nationalism to ethnicity.
Miles regards the presence of any real physical differences between people as irrelevant to both racism and nationalism, which he claims are artificial constructs made to justify a fundamental form of aggression. He writes that “when a person or group is defined as belonging to another race, this is a social artefact and depends only on acts of perception and ideological construction.”

Measuring racism

The Institute of Race Relations commissioned E. J. Rose and others to conduct a survey into the extent of racial prejudice. The 1966/7 report was based on questionnaires that included four questions relevant to racial prejudice. The degree of prejudice exhibited by the respondents was coded according to the number of prejudicial replies to these questions; someone who gave three or four prejudicial answers was said to be prejudiced; someone who gave no hostile answers was said to be tolerant. The survey was based on a sample of 2,500 people from five English urban areas. 35% of the sample were found to be tolerant and 10% prejudiced.
The survey supported the theory of Adorno that racists were people with a certain personality type — the authoritarian type. It stated that the most prejudiced people are those who are “much more prone than others to an authoritarian approach to life”, and who felt “an exaggerated need to submit to authority and acute hostility towards any outgroups.”
The British Social Attitudes Surveys are annual reports based on a representative sample of British people. It includes questions relating to racial prejudice. These surveys indicate a small drop between 1983 of those “not prejudiced at all” from 64% in 1983 to 68% in 1991.
There is considerable concern about racism in the British press. An early study by Paul Hartmann and Charles Husbands based on examination of The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Express and The Daily Mirror between 1963 and 1970 based on content analysis found that newspaper headlines were inflammatory in content, even if the newspaper editorial took a different point-of-view. Teun van Dijk conduced a similar study of newspapers during 1985-6 found that newspaper headlines portrayed inner-city disturbances in terms of ethnic violence rather than reflections of social protest or unrest. That is, ethnic minorities were associated in newspaper headlines with violence and conflict.